Keep out: NASA asks future Moon visitors to respect its stuff

NASA gives advice to participants in Google's Lunar X Prize.

NASA’s proposed radius around the Apollo 17 landing site, which would prevent damage to any historical artifacts from future missions.

NASA

The moon is about to become crowded.

In the next few years a slew of countries, including China, India, and Japan, are looking to put unmanned probes on the lunar surface. But more unprecedented are the 26 teams currently racing to win the Google Lunar X Prize—a contest that will award $20 million to the first private company to land a robot on the lunar surface, travel a third of a mile, and send back a high-definition image before 2015.

With all this activity, NASA is somewhat nervous about its own lunar history. The agency recently released a set of guidelines that aim to preserve important heritage locations such as the Apollo landing and Ranger impact sites. The report, available since 2011 to members of the private spaceflight community, was publicly posted at NASA’s website and officially accepted by the X Prize foundation on May 24.

"NASA has recognized that these sites are important to mankind and have to be protected to make sure there’s no undue damage done to them," said John Thornton, president of Astrobotic Technology Inc., a company competing for the prize.

Though NASA has no way of enforcing the requirements, they are designed to protect materials and scientific equipment at historical lunar sites as well as future landing sites. The guidelines have been made available internationally, and the agency welcomes other nations to participate in and improve upon them, said NASA spokesperson Joshua Buck in an e-mail.

NASA is asking anyone that makes it to the lunar surface to keep their landing at least 1.2 miles away from any Apollo site and about 1,600 feet from the five Ranger impact sites. The distance should keep the old equipment safe from a terrible accident or collision. It will also would put the new equipment "over the lunar horizon" relative to the relics, and prevent any moon dust—known to be a highly abrasive material—from sandblasting NASA’s old machines.

The Apollo 11 and 17 sites—the first and last places visited by man—are singled out in particular for extra care and respect. Robots are prohibited from visiting both sites and are requested to remain outside a large radius (250 feet for Apollo 11 and 740 feet for Apollo 17) to prevent a stray rover from accidentally harming hardware or erasing any footprints.

"Only one misstep could forever damage this priceless human treasure," reads the report.

Looking toward a possible high-traffic lunar future, the report also warns that frequent and repeated visits would have a cumulative and irreversible degrading effect on the historical sites. Other guidelines ask that rovers avoid kicking dust onto existing scientific experiments, like the laser-ranging lunar reflectors that are used to measure the distance between the Earth and moon.

Scientists and engineers would like to obtain updated photos of the Apollo 15 rover to see how it has weathered after nearly 40 years on the lunar surface.

NASA

Once a team has successfully landed, both the guidelines and the Google Lunar X Prize actually encourage them to go near some of the historic landing sites. The X Prize will award an extra $4 million to any company that can snap photos of a man-made object on the moon, including the Soviet Lunokhod rovers. And NASA has placed less restrictive protective radii around their other Apollo-era sites and artifacts, asking that robots merely remain three to nine feet from flags, tools, storage bags, and other pieces.

There is currently little data on what sitting for 40 plus years on the lunar surface does to man-made objects. The moon is an extreme environment, with wild temperature swings and full-on exposure to solar radiation, dust, and micrometeorites, all of which could severely weather materials.

Scientists and engineers are eager to obtain some before and after shots of artifacts that have been exposed to the elements for so long. It could give them insight into building future long-term structures on the moon, such as manned bases or mining operations.

"It’s not a decree, we were able to participate and comment," he said. Richards added that the instructions simply reflect common sense, decency, and respect for other people’s property on the moon.

Images: 1) NASA’s proposed radius around the Apollo 17 landing site, which would prevent damage to any historical artifacts from future missions. 2) Scientists and engineers would like to obtain updated photos of the Apollo 15 rover to see how it has weathered after nearly 40 years on the lunar surface. NASA

I think I have seen this discussion before. Anyone remember and obscure little TV series from the late '70s called "Salvage 1" where Andy Griffith plays a junk dealer who builds a rocket, goes to the moon and brings back NASA's leftover to sell? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078681/

These rules are reasonable and I hope they are followed, but I have to say; if I ever found myself on the moon and within 3-9 feet of the Apollo 15 rover you'd better believe I'm sitting on it for a snapshot.

I think NASA (and the people who fund it) had better get off its ass and get back up there to build some white picket fences with BEWARE OF DOG signs around all these historical sites. It wouldn't hurt if they took along some scarecrows, one for each site, that look like curmudgeonly military vets and have proximity sensors and broadcast an all-frequencies recording of "Get off my lawn!"

A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party of the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.

That moon landing was a hoax -- "Space may be the final frontier but it's made in a Hollywood basement".

+1.

Too true, hard to believe those hippies made it to the Moon and back, all of 350k+ km into space, that too in 1969, when they couldn't retrieve those 7 unfortunates from about 300km above in 2003, that too knowing full well that the Columbia was damaged during launch. IMHO, the ISS is about the furthest we've gone manned into space.

That moon landing was a hoax -- "Space may be the final frontier but it's made in a Hollywood basement".

+1.

Too true, hard to believe those hippies made it to the Moon and back, all of 350k+ km into space, that too in 1969, when they couldn't retrieve those 7 unfortunates from about 300km above in 2003, that too knowing full well that the Columbia was damaged during launch. IMHO, the ISS is about the furthest we've gone manned into space.

That moon landing was a hoax -- "Space may be the final frontier but it's made in a Hollywood basement".

+1.

Too true, hard to believe those hippies made it to the Moon and back, all of 350k+ km into space, that too in 1969, when they couldn't retrieve those 7 unfortunates from about 300km above in 2003, that too knowing full well that the Columbia was damaged during launch. IMHO, the ISS is about the furthest we've gone manned into space.

How you two even know how to use the internet is beyond me.

I am guessing Igor was just trolling, but I certainly, most certainly, hope that cniru was also trolling... If not, then I don't want to live on this planet anymore (I'll take the next moon lander).

Now, since we are on the topic of space rescue, that is actually a good argument for why we should continue to develop and maintain a launch capability, not just in the private sector, but in the public as well. We should be able to put anything in orbit in a few hours notice (provided weather and other conditions are fair), and bring it back home. And not some high maintenance shuttle, but some reliable and relatively simple to maintain vehicles. Why, oh why must we cut our budgets on research, science, education, etc.?

Reasonable. Sounds ethical and I have no doubt any winner or future Space corps/sectors will not cross the perimeter but I think politicians should shut up and get their stuff straight instead of blabbing.

First of all, if you want it left there so that you can observe the effects of erosion for future bases, then you need to take into account that spacecraft will be landing in the vicinity. Using that as an excuse to not have spacecraft land nearby will prevent meaningful observations on erosion from taking place, that being: use case scenario for moon bases.

Second of all, you abandoned the stuff. As far as I'm concerned, it's a free-for-all.

That moon landing was a hoax -- "Space may be the final frontier but it's made in a Hollywood basement".

+1.

Too true, hard to believe those hippies made it to the Moon and back, all of 350k+ km into space, that too in 1969, when they couldn't retrieve those 7 unfortunates from about 300km above in 2003, that too knowing full well that the Columbia was damaged during launch. IMHO, the ISS is about the furthest we've gone manned into space.

I'm sending swingin' Buzz Aldrin your way as we speak. He'll sort you flat-earthers out. The tragedy of Columbia is that we had at least 5 days of overlap to attempt a rescue/repair mission with Atlantis. Ironically, though, it was the Shuttle Program itself (with its cost, complexity and high turnaround times) that sent the US space-program backwards. This is what makes Apollo seem magical by comparison.

NASA can piss off. Vapur9 is right. If they wanted it they should have taken it with them. Besides, a lunar rover might be a fun time. And who knows what other goodies were left up there. I am willing to bet there are a few bags of frozen atronaut poo up there. Look out ebay.

EDIT: Besdes, what's NASA gonna do about it. Get in their brand new space ship and come give you a stern talking to? Oh thats right, NASA doesn't actually go into space anymore....

I hope it will be much more than just the human-affected parts of the moon that are preserved. We should be, ASAP, marking out huge swaths of the moonscape (like, at least 50%) as an absolute no-go for humans, even "for science". With no life or erosion, everything we touch is permanently altered up there. Such points of no return shouldn't be taken lightly. So it's important to take advantage of the still-present opportunity to ensure that all future generations will be able to view at least some untouched lunar surface.

I hope it will be much more than just the human-affected parts of the moon that are preserved. We should be, ASAP, marking out huge swaths of the moonscape (like, at least 50%) as an absolute no-go for humans, even "for science". With no life or erosion, everything we touch is permanently altered up there. Such points of no return shouldn't be taken lightly. So it's important to take advantage of the still-present opportunity to ensure that all future generations will be able to view at least some untouched lunar surface.

I believe the opposite is true. As a red-blooded American it's our duty to set aside enormous amounts of Earth-facing lunascape to be used for the benefit of private enterprise and capitalism! Just imagine how incredibly beautiful your moonlit stroll along the beach could be with a gentle, glowing reminder to purchase your favorite beverage!

I hope it will be much more than just the human-affected parts of the moon that are preserved. We should be, ASAP, marking out huge swaths of the moonscape (like, at least 50%) as an absolute no-go for humans, even "for science". With no life or erosion, everything we touch is permanently altered up there. Such points of no return shouldn't be taken lightly. So it's important to take advantage of the still-present opportunity to ensure that all future generations will be able to view at least some untouched lunar surface.

And what exactly do we gain by preserving "at least 50%" of a barren lifeless rock? I can understand regulation to prevent any permanent changes visible from Earth with the naked eye or with very low-powered telescopes--which would be major undertakings we wouldn't be capable of any time soon in the first place--but the idea that we should preserve some random thing untouched merely because it exists is strange indeed. It's a good thing our ancestors weren't very encumbered by this irrational and alien, overly sentimental notion.

Now, for scientific and general conservation reasons we should certainly preserve some of the lunar surface untouched, but it needn't be much in absolute terms. Certainly it's very premature to start worrying over it, considering the huge surface area of the Moon. But in general, the sooner we have Moon Base Lambda and Disney's Lunar Resort, the better.

NASA has lost almost everything from those Apollo missions.They've even lost the blueprints used to make the rockets, the rovers, etc, and the mission control shown to the visitors is just a replica.

Now all of a sudden they are getting protective about their moon stuff.

This should be a golden opportunity to prove once for all that we landed on the moon, BUT, they are saying, keep out of it.

From 225 feet you can see the descending stage, the rovers. And all that stuff could have been landed remotely.

What you need to see is the footprints, that's the proof that we went there.Back in the 70s, no machine could have faked footprints of astronauts jumping everywhere.

But NASA is saying, no you can't do that.

Oooook

Actually, they've only said keep away from 11 and 17 due to their historical significance. If you read the article, NASA is keen for visits to the other Apollo sites:

"NASA has placed less restrictive protective radii around their other Apollo-era sites and artifacts, asking that robots merely remain three to nine feet from flags, tools, storage bags, and other pieces."